BN66/S58 update

[AtW]

There are tons of other avoidance schemes out there, so why does our case bug you so much?

I don't think other schemes are acceptable anymore than yours, HMRC appears to be dealing with them now.

Compared to others your group is certainly far more vocal considering fairly small size - going to court under Human Rights laws that were intended to stop torture and things like that to argue that you (The Huitson case) is ok to pay income tax at 3.5% when others pay 40%+???

I've honestly never seen more blatant case of cynical abuse of the Human Rights laws.

I am sure you'd be pretty happy to spend another 10 years in courts with HMRC spending more taxpayer money, but it's no longer necessary since you've totally lost your legal challenge.

Your members were lucky to be born in this country in the first place, then get education/experience in particular field that was in very high demand - most people in this country would not comperehend that there are people earning £500 per day sitting in front of computer. And it is this group that can afford to pay taxes on high earnings resorted to ridiculous scheme that totally fooked the taxpayer over.

And now you use scaremongering tactics about possible future retro action from Govt, well thanks to your failed court action it's now a legal precedent even if it gets removed from statue books

[BolshieBastard]

I don't think other schemes are acceptable anymore than yours, HMRC appears to be dealing with them now.

Compared to others your group is certainly far more vocal considering fairly small size - going to court under Human Rights laws that were intended to stop torture and things like that to argue that you (The Huitson case) is ok to pay income tax at 3.5% when others pay 40%+???

I've honestly never seen more blatant case of cynical abuse of the Human Rights laws.

I am sure you'd be pretty happy to spend another 10 years in courts with HMRC spending more taxpayer money, but it's no longer necessary since you've totally lost your legal challenge.

Your members were lucky to be born in this country in the first place, then get education/experience in particular field that was in very high demand - most people in this country would not comperehend that there are people earning £500 per day sitting in front of computer. And it is this group that can afford to pay taxes on high earnings resorted to ridiculous scheme that totally fooked the taxpayer over.

And now you use scaremongering tactics about possible future retro action from Govt, well thanks to your failed court action it's now a legal precedent even if it gets removed from statue books

Going to the courts under the EHR legislation was the scheme provider's decision. Why dont you get your facts correct before spouting yet more ill informed tulipe?

IMO, the scheme provider made a huge mistake and successfully backed hmrc into a corner they couldnt get out of without underhand tactics. The scheme provider should have played along with hmrc and got them into court to argue their \ our position.

People would have accepted a decision made by the courts on the legality or otherwise, albeit reluctantly. What you, hmrc and gauke dont now seem to grasp, is the very simple fact that hmrc delayed taking any decisive action on this issue for 8 years.

You even claimed we dragged this out through the courts. Yet again, a simple fact you could not get right.

[AtW]

Please tell me how are you supposed to make informed decisions on something legal which is then made illegal 7 or 8 years later?

Well, that's very easy actually - when somebody offers you contrived scheme that gets income tax from 40% to 3.5% then it's most certainly a tax cheat that you should stay away from it.

How hard is that?

Now if your scheme paid say 35% tax in foreign country instead of 40% here and your actual economic activity was there then I'd say ok - it's does not sound dangerous.

Twats like atw can harp on all he wants about the 'morality' of these schemes.

Twats like me provide employment in this country, export revenues and foreign direct investment - this means badly needed taxes are paid.

Twats like you just fook the taxpayer over.

At this point I was about to type that my company probably generated more tax for last 12 months then you did in last 12 years but then I've realised that a bum on a street could have said the same

Let's say a far left Government is formed and decides the intention of company taxation was that SME companies with 10 employees and directors drawing dividends should really have paid a 90% tax rate instead of the 40% they did pay.

The then Government then backdate their new stance on tax to 8 years prior making what our legal director did now illegal. Yeah, nothing wrong there, is there?

Ok, let's for a moment imagine that they actually do that and enforce it. Here is what would happen - most companies/directors would go bankrupt, firesale of assets that nobody will buy - people who paid taxes at current rates will be out of jobs, we are talking millions here I reckon.

That would be pretty bad for sure, but not just the people involved but for the Govt - they'd have to find jobs, deal with tax loss etc.

Now let's look at your example - a small bunch of tax cheats who thought it was funny to pay tax at 3.5% rate will go bankrupt. Well, that's very useful actually - no tax loss since your group did not pay any, and very good example for others.

And let's be clear here - there are a LOT of people go bankrupt every year with very sad stories that I can sympathise with, most of them did not have anything like highly paid jobs in BN66 group (or EBTs) - most people in this country can only dream of having a job that pays £500/day and they would gladly pay full tax due on it if they could get one of those.

[moira under the stairs]

I don't think other schemes are acceptable anymore than yours, HMRC appears to be dealing with them now.

Compared to others your group is certainly far more vocal considering fairly small size - going to court under Human Rights laws that were intended to stop torture and things like that to argue that you (The Huitson case) is ok to pay income tax at 3.5% when others pay 40%+???

I've honestly never seen more blatant case of cynical abuse of the Human Rights laws.

I am sure you'd be pretty happy to spend another 10 years in courts with HMRC spending more taxpayer money, but it's no longer necessary since you've totally lost your legal challenge.

Your members were lucky to be born in this country in the first place, then get education/experience in particular field that was in very high demand - most people in this country would not comperehend that there are people earning £500 per day sitting in front of computer. And it is this group that can afford to pay taxes on high earnings resorted to ridiculous scheme that totally fooked the taxpayer over.

And now you use scaremongering tactics about possible future retro action from Govt, well thanks to your failed court action it's now a legal precedent even if it gets removed from statue books

See this is where your FACTS are completely distorted and demonstrating what a narrowed minded individual you are. The Campaign is to have the right to a fair day in court with the law as it stood prior to the backdated change of the law. HMRC have lied, cheated and misled Parliament to have this legislation put in place why ? maybe for individuals looking at this case to get their bonuses for the Tax collected.

With the money that is collected from this particular Legal (at the time) 'Tax Planning' solution (as defined by Government) is a drop in the ocean compared to other schemes and Large Corporate Tax Avoidance, there is a question that has yet to be answered why one promoter was singled out when Transparent Tax Submission Claims were filed and in some cases accepted.

HMRC are in Turmoil with an almost 18,000 page Tax Code Manual.

Some drastic reforms are needed and bad legislation removed, IR35 is an example.

[AtW]

Going to the courts under the EHR legislation was the scheme provider's decision.

They did it on your behalf, or at least you were the main benefactor of any success in it.

the very simple fact that hmrc delayed taking any decisive action on this issue for 8 years.

I am pretty sure judge addressed that in the judgement.

Like you I share your concerns about speed at which HMRC deals with such cases - they should have been a lot quicker with the first tax evader jailed within months of this scheme usage, alongside with those who created and marketed it.

You even claimed we dragged this out through the courts.

Yes, you've dragged it through courts with appeals on all levels.

[AtW]

See this is where your FACTS are completely distorted and demonstrating what a narrowed minded individual you are.

I pay my taxes, so I can be a narrow minded individual if I fancy it - I am sure HMRC does not mind that

The Campaign is to have the right to a fair day in court with the law as it stood prior to the backdated change of the law.

You've had it already and lost.

why one promoter was singled out when Transparent Tax Submission Claims were filed and in some cases accepted.

I don't know why just one provider was picked and why it was specifically this one.

I can only speculate that they looked at those who took the piss (and 3.5% tax is taking the piss).

HMRC certainly deserves a lot of criticism for not dealing with such abuse quicker and much harsher.

[moira under the stairs]

I pay my taxes, so I can be a narrow minded individual if I fancy it - I am sure HMRC does not mind that



You've had it already and lost.



I don't know why just one provider was picked and why it was specifically this one.

I can only speculate that they looked at those who took the piss (and 3.5% tax is taking the piss).

HMRC certainly deserves a lot of criticism for not dealing with such abuse quicker and much harsher.

Of course you are completely right on all accounts... lets sit back and take all the crap the Governments deal out Hmmmmm......

[centurian]

1) We are not asking to be let off.

Regardless of whether you are or not, this is how it will be spun - and this is the reason why Gauke is resisting it, even though I suspect he secretly agrees with you about the wrongs of retrospective legislation.

So the government say they are getting tough on tax avoidance. How can we believe this when they have let off a load of tax avoiders just this week. And even worse than that, this was a bunch of dodgers who have been comprehensively defeated in court three times. This action was started under Labour and now that we have them on the ropes - and just when we should strike the killer blow, what do this Tory government do - let them off the hook.

Whether you agree with a single word of the above or not, this is what scares Gauke et al.

[AtW]

lets sit back and take all the crap the Governments deal out Hmmmmm......

If you lead campaign to reduce taxes for everybody, or reduce Govt tax waste then I'd agree with it and probably help in some way.

But this was never about it?

It was about fooking over honest taxpayers who paid 40%+NIC when BN66 crowd paid 3.5% tax.

Well, I'll correct that - you did not give a flying money about suckers who paid full tax and just wanted to pay as little as possible yourself.

[moira under the stairs]

If you lead campaign to reduce taxes for everybody, or reduce Govt tax waste then I'd agree with it and probably help in some way.

But this was never about it?

It was about fooking over honest taxpayers who paid 40%+NIC when BN66 crowd paid 3.5% tax.

Well, I'll correct that - you did not give a flying money about suckers who paid full tax and just wanted to pay as little as possible yourself.

Over the years I too was a sucker (your word not mine) using a Ltd company and paid more than a 'Fair share' of Tax maybe more than the average person will pay in a life time, but still the Government demanded more from me with double NI etc. for them to whittle away and waste, they then brought in IR35 which confused the TAX system even more....

I don't get sick pay, holiday pay, company pension etc. so the monies I saved in Tax compensated for these deficits I also paid a fairly substantial fee to the promoter for arranging my Tax affairs through the LEGAL TAX PLANNING Arrangement.

Yes we may have stumbled across somehing that we were allowed to use to pay less tax, which was out of reach of the average person to use, but If the average person were given an avenue to pay less Tax I'm sure the majority of those would use it.

Every Citizen has the right to legally arrange their Tax affairs in order to pay less tax.